Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.

JayS wrote:...Ain't gonna work. Give them money like that and I can bet my bottom rupee that most of that money will never be put back in RnD. Did I not tell you my company uses its own earned money only for business purpose and go with begging bowl to government for RnD money..? That's Capitalism for you. Of coarse they get money only on the condition that they have to match the contribution to be able to get the funding or they have to surrender the control of tech in some way. Instead, keep the price competitive, if you want them not to become another PSU. They need to be lean and competitive as an org for bread and butter work to survive on the global level. Bankroll the RnD separately in pieces for well articulated long term and short term hard goals in bigger inter-organisational frameworks. Bankroll the RnD in academia. GOI's work is not only to give money but to give the direction as well. GOI also has to drive the tech dev actively through its various organisations. Capitalism do not work in intended way unless there is a strong shepherding and regulation from government.

Under what policy does to government fund R&D in the private sector, I'm trying to understand how this works and how much money is actually transferred. I think it was posted on another thread that the brahmos seeker being developed by data patterns(?) is being done on their own dime (unless I misunderstood). So who gets funded and who doesn't?

Our system was never built for facilitating any RnD work in Pvt organisations. There is no real policy. So far I have not seen any real funding to talk about by GOI to any private company. Mostly the initial dev happens with "no cost no commitment" basis. We neither have RnD programs under which GOI invite private companies to bid for funding or DRDO or PSUs giving money to some supplier to develop something for them. May be few exceptions here and there which I am not aware of. But there is no system in place. Technically GOI money can be given to Private companies for RnD types work, say develop certain manufacturing process, or some simulation code, or some design system or some component. But no babu, whether admin or technocrat from our RnD organisations or PSUs are willing to take responsibility to give the funding to a pvt player and them make sure there are tangible results from it. If the money doesn't give results (which is very much possible for a lot of cases) then there could be backlash. No one wants that. So it never happens. Instead they play safe and give money to IIT profs who may or may not come up with anything of value, at least not of value in engineering sense for immediate requirements. Even if nothing happens the guy who disbursed money can say "hey look, I gave it to IIT prof OK, who is suppose to be best in country. If he doesn't turn up with results what can I do.?". Even till now one could apply for funding to Min of Sci and Tech but getting it was a big fight. generally we see in India that the funding is very top-down. That is funds are given for a big program such as LCA and then some of that fund is to be used to develop specifically needed technologies. But this is very parochial way of funding. Its difficult to put a number for total available fund in India as of now. But whatever it may be hardly anything reaches to pvt companies. DRDO or ISRO or NAL itself are highly under-funded.

Outside India, the funding happenes through well defined programs, either product focused, such as fighter jets, or futuristic technology development focused, such as Clean Sky in EU. Companies bid for the funding with technical proposals and they get the money based on whose proposal seems more promising. Generally in US, multiple companies will be given chance on alternate paths. Now its changing due to lack of funding. In EU multiple companies collaborate on single thing. But key thing is there is a well defined program with well defined and realistic goals and technological path. Generally companies need to put in their fixed amount of their own money in addition to the government funding. The technology feeds into the next iteration of the products. This way government actually subsidizes the technology for entire nation because this makes the technology in future to be cheaper.

This is a generic picture of coarse. Now we here GOI started 1000Cr of start up fund or some other tech fund where pvt companies can apply for funding. I see people asking for money to Start Up India twitter handle. I am not sure how easily they give money, but I think it will be a while before the real picture changes.

chola wrote:I cannot find a single independent "design house" like ADA. All of their manufacturers have integrated design divisions. This is how they pursue so many projects at the same time.

You have sufficiently displayed a lack of basic understanding of the issue. Independent or in-house design bureau matters little. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Tata can develop a design house from assembling F-16s. You have still not answered my question from how assembling F-16s is Tata going to make another fighter. I asked you that on the previous page (101) of this thread. You have no answer, do you?

No, YOU have sufficiently displayed a total lack of understanding of the issue by harping on "design" when the most pertinent issue facing our aviation industry is the lack of an ecosystem.

ADA designed the LCA and flew it 16 years ago. So obviously just designing stuff is no issue especially if you use off the shelf parts from the rest of the world.

The ISSUE is a decade and half after first flight, we only have four in service and the things were delayed by the need for phoren parts like the damn nose cone. The problem is in production which is affected by the lack of an ecosystem.

The only "design" problem is ADA cannot design something that HAL can easily make with in-country conponents. Or conversely, HAL can't make anything ADA designs because it doesn't the suppliers it needs. Which makes all this talk about indigenizing 70% of the MKI meaningless.

Either way, the PSUs are not working. Give TATA and the private sector a chance.

Cain Marko wrote:Reg. Point A that I had made in an earlier post. Nahi nahi sir, aap mere misunderstanding ko misunderstand kar rahe ho.

I like this one

Cain Marko wrote:My response to Indranilji's comment that the IAF is likely to have a circus with so many different fighters was to suggest that the IAF has dealt with worse before. As far as diversification of fighter inventory goes, I believe the IAF wanted to reduce its dependence on Russki maal and this is borne out by by the rather disdainful attitude shown by the IAF towards the Mig-35. IIRC an ex-ACM suggested that the bird was "empty" from the inside....

If this is a circus, then it is all the more reason to not adopt another type in the IAF, no? This dependence on Russian maal has been from the '60s onwards, when the entire "2" series of MiGs (with the exception of the Su-7) started joining the IAF.

Cain Marko wrote:WRT the definition of insanity above, I completely agree however, with a caveat. For a private company to get roped into doing screwdrivergiri is an entirely new thing for India. It will create much needed competition to HAL and that is not a bad/insane thing even though it is still only screwdrivergiri. IOWs, we will have great efficiency in screwdrivering at the end of this story. Still that might just be enough to create competition to PSUs. For example - ADA might have a choice when it comes to the AMCA whether to tie up with HAL, with which it has had a rocky relationship or with Tata and even Reliance. This will light fire under HALs tush for good measure. In time, these companies might even tie up with international design houses and come up with their own designs to compete against ADA+HAL, but that could take a loong time..

Okay, finally we agree that Tata will onlee be doing screwdrivergiri And yes, they will likely be more efficient than HAL. But Tata's efficiency comes with a huge support base behind it. Lockheed Martin's established supply chain in the US. Take that out of the equation and what does Tata have? You can hire chimpanzees to do this and they will still be more efficient that HAL.

chola wrote:No, YOU have sufficiently displayed a total lack of understanding of the issue by harping on "design" when the most pertinent issue facing our aviation industry is the lack of an ecosystem.

ADA designed the LCA and flew it 16 years ago. So obviously just designing stuff is no issue especially if you use off the shelf parts from the rest of the world.

The ISSUE is a decade and half after first flight, we only have four in service and the things were delayed by the need for phoren parts like the damn nose cone. The problem is in production which is affected by the lack of an ecosystem.

The only "design" problem is ADA cannot design something that HAL can easily make with in-country components. Or conversely, HAL can't make anything ADA designs because it doesn't the suppliers it needs. Which makes all this talk about indigenizing 70% of the MKI meaningless.

Either way, the PSUs are not working. Give TATA and the private sector a chance.

So it is confirmed that you have no answer. You have not a single shred of evidence or data or science - apart from HOPE - to back up your claim that from assembling 100 F-Solah's, India (to be more precise...Tata) will have an aviation ecosystem that can design & test a viable engine, an AESA radar, an airframe that is proven in wind tunnels, shock tests, lightning tests and everything else.

Oh and by the way - apart from the engine - India has already proven the airframe via the Tejas and has an AESA radar that is near complete as per Dileep in the LCA thread. All from without assembling 100 F-Solahs Going by that yardstick, the Tejas is better than the Korean T-50 which uses an American/Israeli radar and was designed largely by Lockheed Martin. And if Snecma-Safran flies a Tejas with a Kaveri engine onboard, it will beat the T-50 on that measure as well.

If HAL cannot make anything that ADA designs, you think from assembling 100 F-16s...Tata is going to become an aviation powerhouse?

Safe to state that the F-Solah has lost? May be not. May be this is just a DDM article. If it is not, it is sad. Nothing to gloat about really. Because now all we are left with is vaporware and who knows whether Saab can live up to its promises. What a messed up situation this is.

Hey Chola, how's that Tata Design Bureau looking right now? How is that HOPE working out for you?

To a question on whether the US has agreed for transfer of sophisticated technology and production of F-16 jets under the ‘Make in India’ initiative, Subhash Bhamre, Minister of State for Defense said “no”. Bhamre was answering the question in the parliament Tuesday. The critical technologies in question are integrated systems for active electronically scanned array radar, electro-optical targeting pod, infrared search and track and radio frequency jammer. It may be recalled the US had refused to part with these technologies for the South Korean K-FX aircraft, a derivative of the F-16 made by Korean Aerospace Industries in association with Lockheed Martin. South Korea is building its own fighter plane closely modelled along the F-16 with a number of crucial inputs coming from Lockheed Martin.

Actually come to think of it, I hope India pulls LM out of the race. Then we will have a single vendor situation which is anathema in the MoD. Back to square one. The crew at ADA/HAL can work overtime and get the issues with Tejas production resolved. Snecma-Safran also will have to pull in their weight. Interesting next couple of years ahead for the Tejas team.

By letting tatas or similar private company to assemble another aircraft would not make them a design house I do not think but. let me give u one little example. 18 yrs ago I decided I wanted to assemble my own fancy large computer table with all bells and whistles. Never did anything similar DIY in my life before that. If I were to continue doing that week in and week out you start to get a feel for these things. Now it won,t make me a furniture designer but if I wanted to become one, it would make life a lot easier with that experience.Anyway took 3 days and 20-25 hrs of hard work in winter poring over the damn design, screws, measurments etc.

Now assembling a Fighter aircraft is gazillion times more complex, I understand but Chola is partly right that it would definitely help tatas or others in the future if and when they ever decide to design their own plane, no question in my mind.

snahata: Please see this. What chola is hoping, Saab is promising. LM does not even come close to Saab's offer. I don't see how it is going to happen, but that is what Saab is promising. And that ties into what chola is saying. Maybe Saab is blowing hot air and will say anything to win this competition. However, if the above article is TRUE, I don't see how Lockheed Martin expects to win this competition now. Outright denial vs promises. Which one will you pick?

They're scared of a more capable a/c at cheaper price, tested and created in hot - humid, dusty environment. Especially how Tejas has shocked everyone with its amazing performance in Leh, while Gripen failed miserably.

Last prices we know for Gripen are around $ 100 million. For the F 16 they hover around $ 80 million. This is just for off the shelf airplanes built in fully amortized plants in their home countries. India would have to pay for IP, weapons, modifications and testing. This is in addition to new plants and equipment.

If we take the Rafale deal as a model, here is the cost breakdown.36 aircraft at $ 120 million each = $4.32 billion.So the rest of the 4 billion odd dollars are for weapons, customization and training and bases.

With a conservative $ 4 billion for weapons customization and training and another $ 4 billion for plants and equipment, the cost for 120 F 16 are $ 17.6 billion. Similarly the Gripen will cost around $ 20 billion. This will tie up $ 2 billion per year over the next 10 years.I would be extremely happy if IAF can afford this, but I think it will be difficult.

There are some great advantages going in for the F-16. Lower unit cost, proven fighter, supply chain is unbeatable and obviously the alignment with the United States. On all those points - and there are certainly more - the American plane is excellent. The problem however for the IAF lies in the future upgradability of the platform.

To all the proponents of the F-16 --> you are forgetting the "real" customer here - which is the IAF and not the GOI. Govts come and go...Modi Sarkar will not be around forever. A future government will have a very different view of Make In India (MII) or come up with another program altogether. And the IAF knows this well and they are hedging their bets on a platform with the least risk (or their view of risk). While this deal is far from over (and the F-16 may likely win), the US Govt/LMT are repeating the mistake by offering the same platform that lost earlier. You can put lipstick (in this case AESA radar, production line transfer, etc) on a pig...but it will STILL be a pig.

But those who do not learn from history (the first MMRCA downselect), are destined to repeat it (the second LMRCA downselect).

Now one can argue that Saab offered the Gripen and that too lost in the first MMRCA contest. And that is true, but it is that line of thinking that may cause Lockheed Martin to lose this competition. Is LMT and the US Govt in this to win it or to keep score? It should be LMT's goal (and the US Govt's) to convince the IAF and the GOI that they have a better offering and a better platform. They can keep harping about transferring the production line and having a MRO facility, but Saab has done a better PR job and outplayed them to date. It may be empty promises, but it certainly got the IAF's attention. And at the end of the day, that is the only variable that has significance. It was proven beyond doubt in the first MMRCA contest.

Most countries buy weapons from another with a strategic alignment/partnership in view (US & Israel, US & UK and so on). India buys weapons to keep up with China and have an edge over Pakistan. That is the difference. And till that mindset is changed in India, the US will get the same result over and over again. And India will forver be playing catch up and buying band aid solutions to solve her military woes.

There is also another problem with American military purchases. The US Administration will want something, but the US Congress and the US Senate will want something completely different. And this is a problem that can divide even a single political party in the US. Just watching the whole Obamacare Repeal comedy drama that is going on right now is a good example of that. The Republicans control the House, the Senate and the Executive Branch and yet they cannot repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Republicans themselves in all three branches of government are killing the repeal, by not being able to agree. Just imagine if the Democrats get involved.

Also when administrations in the US change, policies change as well and that can be detrimental to a deal. And that scares the daylights out of countries (unless you are a banana republic like the United Kingdom) that want to do business - military or otherwise - with the US. Providing blanket (but empty) assurances that will not happen with the F-Solah deal, is expecting us Indians to have amnesia of the past 70 years. If India wanted to do a cross border raid into Pakistan - for whatever reason - what guarentee is there that the US will not stop shipping components of the F-Solah for screwdrivergiri?

The Gripen will likely have a higher unit cost, but it will make up for a lower operating cost. The major downfall for the Gripen is the number of countries (including the US) that Sweden has partenered with for key components on the plane. The GE F414 turbofan is a prime example.

All forign single engine fighters have the greatest virtue of preventing the building of domestic ecosystem of aircraft design and then converting that design into a successful production design. So yes let's repeat HF 24 all over again.

Will the Minister of DEFENCE j{kk ea=hbe pleased to state:(a) whether the United State of America (USA) has agreed to provide strategicallyimportant technology, fighter and cargo planes, helicopter and drone etc.;(b) if so, the details thereof;(c) whether efforts have been made to develop technology for manufacturing fighterplanes and drones in the country so as to make the country self-reliant in defence sector;and(d) if so, the details thereof?

A N S W E R

MINISTER OF STATE (DR. SUBHASH BHAMRE)IN THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCEर ा राय मंी (डा. सुभाष भामरे)(a) & (b): India and the United States of America share wide-rangingcooperation in the field of defence, which includes procurement of state ofthe art defence equipment.

(c) & (d): Government remains committed to develop technology formanufacturing of advanced defence equipment in India to promote selfreliance.Programmes for licensed manufacturing, as well as indigenousdesign and manufacturing of aerospace platforms have already beenimplemented in this regard.

As far as above record of Q&A is concern, the article was not a DDM but fake one. nowhere in the reply MoS says no and any mention of US denial.

You may have the dates wrong. The link you quoted has a date referring to 28 July 2017 which was a Friday. The date in question from the defenceworld.net website lists Minister Bhamre answering the question on Tuesday, August 01st. And Indian Express and Economic Times carried the same news with the latter date as well. See below. Can you pull the questions from Tuesday, August 01st and see if such a question was asked?

what would it means , not only F-16 but also may be be F-18 won't come, which means more order for Tejas and Rafale. Also, we can see some solid development on PAK-FA or am I expecting too much from it.

what would it means , not only F-16 but also may be be F-18 won't come, which means more order for Tejas and Rafale. Also, we can see some solid development on PAK-FA or am I expecting too much from it.

Buying F-16 which will be in service for the next 40 years will be a step back for IAF and airframe/production wise we wont do any thing new that we are not doing with MKI , Hawk or Jags at HAL , We might well have bought the M2K-5 in 1999 and they would be as good as F-16.

Gripen is still a better option but as with F-16 will be eating into Tejas numbers .......There is no good choice to make in Single Engine Program its a Loss Loss Proposition for Industry , R&D and IAF . the way farward is to put our money where the mouth is and productionise Tejas at HAL and Private Facility even if that means its half a gen behind Gripen-NG today for the first few dozen its a good deal and in next 5-6 years it will catch up with most of what NG/F-16 blk 70 can offer today.

Singha wrote:what it means is the deal is not decided yet. thats all it means.

Yes that was also possible, may be in coming months picture would be more clear

Meanwhile here is the content:

GOVERNMENT OF INDIAMINISTRY OF DEFENCERAJYA SABHAQUESTION NO 1805ANSWERED ON 01.08.2017

Production of F 16 fighter jets under Make in India1805 Shri Sambhaji ChhatrapatiWill the Minister of DEFENCE be pleased to satate :-(a) whether it is a fact that India and US have agreed for transfer of sophisticated technology and production of F-16 fighter jets under ‘Make in India’ which are considered having an edge on other fighter jets;

(b) whether certain restrictions under International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) shall not come in the way of transfer of certain special technological features like sensors and datalink, etc.; and

(c) if so, how will it be possible for India to manufacture F-16 fighter jets to penetrate into international market?

Singha wrote:what it means is the deal is not decided yet. thats all it means.

That is correct. Too early as far as the program is concerned to have gotten definitive reaction from GOTUS particularly this one which is currently rejigging DTTI and other cooperative efforts with India in light of legislatively mandated changes to the Pentagon.

The Gripen will likely have a higher unit cost, but it will make up for a lower operating cost. The major downfall for the Gripen is the number of countries (including the US) that Sweden has partenered with for key components on the plane. The GE F414 turbofan is a prime example.

Rakesh, A lot of what the Gripen has improved over the F-16, M2K and other single engine aircraft of the past is manpower reduction. The extent of this lower cost depends upon the manpower cost structure which will obviously be nowhere close to Sweden or another western country as far as India is concerned. Fuel costs and cost of consumables usually make up a fraction of the operating cost in the western context (manpower being the leader) but here the Gripen enjoys an advantage.

Additionally, O&S over a long enough period also boils down to mission system sophistication and the infrastructure and technology refresh that is required to sustain that. I wouldn't be too comfortable to assume that the Gripen-E here enjoys a distinct advantage given its possibly 3 continent assembly, and small production volume. Depending upon specifics of what each side proposes for this competition it is quite likely that the installed base for much of the mission systems could be larger for the F-16 by a factor of 2 or 3 in some instances.

Austin wrote:Buying F-16 which will be in service for the next 40 years will be a step back for IAF and airframe/production wise we wont do any thing new that we are not doing with MKI , Hawk or Jags at HAL , We might well have bought the M2K-5 in 1999 and they would be as good as F-16.

Gripen is still a better option but as with F-16 will be eating into Tejas numbers .......There is no good choice to make in Single Engine Program its a Loss Loss Proposition for Industry , R&D and IAF . the way farward is to put our money where the mouth is and productionise Tejas at HAL and Private Facility even if that means its half a gen behind Gripen-NG today for the first few dozen its a good deal and in next 5-6 years it will catch up with most of what NG/F-16 blk 70 can offer today.

Look at it this way - F 16 was the one aircraft with all its frills and fancies that IAF has spent the last few decades decoding, deconstructing and finding weaknesses. Now that it knows the weaknesses, IAF does not want it.

It was pretty much a given that the US would not release production of things like radar, etc. Nothing surprising there.

The deal has been undone, as I had posted earlier, because Trump is unwilling to let a number of jobs slide to India. MII is about increasing jobs in India and Trump has shot that component down. Very few jobs will come to India. That is unacceptable to India.

Austin wrote:Buying F-16 which will be in service for the next 40 years will be a step back for IAF and airframe/production wise we wont do any thing new that we are not doing with MKI , Hawk or Jags at HAL , We might well have bought the M2K-5 in 1999 and they would be as good as F-16.

Gripen is still a better option but as with F-16 will be eating into Tejas numbers .......There is no good choice to make in Single Engine Program its a Loss Loss Proposition for Industry , R&D and IAF . the way farward is to put our money where the mouth is and productionise Tejas at HAL and Private Facility even if that means its half a gen behind Gripen-NG today for the first few dozen its a good deal and in next 5-6 years it will catch up with most of what NG/F-16 blk 70 can offer today.

Look at it this way - F 16 was the one aircraft with all its frills and fancies that IAF has spent the last few decades decoding, deconstructing and finding weaknesses. Now that it knows the weaknesses, IAF does not want it.

He he...Lucky for us then that bakis are beggers and no-one other than Russians (luckily no PAKFA yet) really sell fighter to China. Else IAF would be running out of options to buy stuff, had they been finding weaknesses in multiple types of jets from West and Russia.

deejay wrote:Look at it this way - F 16 was the one aircraft with all its frills and fancies that IAF has spent the last few decades decoding, deconstructing and finding weaknesses. Now that it knows the weaknesses, IAF does not want it.

He he...Lucky for us then that bakis are beggers and no-one other than Russians (luckily no PAKFA yet) really sell fighter to China. Else IAF would be running out of options to buy stuff, had they been finding weaknesses in multiple types of jets from West and Russia.

Singha wrote:what it means is the deal is not decided yet. thats all it means.

Yes that was also possible, may be in coming months picture would be more clear

You guys are right. Because the question was asked again in Parliament on Friday (Aug 04), as per these news sites, and again the answer is no. The same applies for the Gripen as well. I guess that is the reason why Saab did not rush into a signing agreement with Adani. They probably saw the writing on the wall.

"There is no immediate proposal to procure F-16 fighter jets for the Indian Air Force. Details of agreements entered into by Indian companies in this regard are not held by the government," Minister of State for Defence Subhash Bhamre said in a written reply to Lok Sabha. "Any future procurement of fighter jets for the Indian Air Force would be undertaken under the extant procurement procedures," the Minister said.

This was apparent from the begining. Lockheed and SAAB are posturing to offer an industrial package as part of their proposals. These things constitute internal agreements that will provide a framework for their offer but it obviously does not constitute a preference from the IAF or the MOD who will evaluate the proposals from a technical and financial/offset/MII perspective. This if the program ever advances to that stage.

In India’s new procurement process for fighter aircraft, the Modi government is insisting there be manufacturing in India. America’s chief rival for a multi-billion dollar contract is Saab of Sweden, which is prepared to build its Gripen line of fighters in India. The United States, through Lockheed Martin, is contemplating matching the Saab/Sweden proposal by offering to transfer the entire production line for an advanced version of the F-16 from Texas to India. Fortuitously, this transfer would actually work to retain jobs in America because this production line has no more contracts to keep it running.

A basic difficulty in transferring F-16 production to India is the myriad licenses needed on a technology-by-technology basis under current law. A similar difficulty would impede such other major joint undertakings. Among those that have been considered include those involving the F-18 for naval use, armed drones, or an aircraft carrier. This difficulty could be alleviated by legislation that would allow special comprehensive authorizations for “major projects” and “major programs” involving India. Such authorizations are now allowed for NATO countries plus Australia, Japan, and Sweden – but not India – under 22 CFR 126.4. Changes in the law could be combined with language specifically giving congressional impetus to the U.S.-India advanced F-16 or other such project. Such impetus may in turn lead to concluding the long-running negotiations for India and the United States to enter into the foundational agreements necessary for the flow of technology between the U.S. and India.

Because combat aviation is steadily moving towards the dominance of stealthy platforms, India should be seeking to leverage these purchases towards the development or the acquisition of fifth-generation fighters.

Because combat aviation is steadily moving towards the dominance of stealthy platforms, India should be seeking to leverage these purchases towards the development or the acquisition of fifth-generation fighters.

Combat aviation is steadily moving towards to dominance of stealthy platforms, so India should be investing in non-stealthy platforms? Lets cut out this 'leverage' nonsense and directly pursue a fifth generation fighter instead of blowing our bankroll on a redundant platform.

Cain Marko wrote:Great post Viv - have to agree. INdia needs to get a private player to get a FACO line for the JSF although the one downside to this could be its cost

CM, give it another 2-3 years and the F-35A will be cheaper than whatever block of F-16 they're offering. Simple outcome of vastly greater economies of scale. The F-16 will be running at 12-15 units per year max while the F-35 program will be putting out over 150 units annually.

A FACO line will probably run us about $1 bn plus/minus. More than an F-16 line but the difference is definitely worth it given what each is delivering.

Viv_S: What the author is saying is basically buy the F-16 and F-18 and the F-35 will follow. There is a problem with that though...we are not going to get (unless Unkil offers some serious concessions...buy why?) F-35s at the $85 million mark that LM is projecting the cost to be in a couple of years. See this as well....

The FAB was also said to be interested in the Lockheed-Martin F-35, but the finalized nature of the Lighting’s industrial production partnership program was likely to keep the program from delivering the industrial offsets Brazil seeks.

Rakesh wrote:Viv_S: What the author is saying is basically buy the F-16 and F-18 and the F-35 will follow. There is a problem with that though...we are not going to get (unless Unkil offers some serious concessions...buy why?) F-35s at the $85 million mark that LM is projecting the cost to be in a couple of years. See this as well....

The way I see, the F-16 or F-18 is not, or at least should not be, a pre-requisite to acquiring the F-35. If anything, it'll strip away critical funding from the latter and unnecessarily diversify an already over-diverse fleet.

We're not in the JSF consortium so we're unlikely to get the kind of industrial benefits/workshare enjoyed by the likes of UK or Italy. But that doesn't affect the unit cost which is an entirely different issue.

Even through the FMS route the aircraft will be available at a price similar to what the participating members are paying. The JPO is aiming for a unit flyaway cost of $80 mil by 2020. For an FMS customer like Israel or India, that might run to $85-90 mil/unit after DSCA's 5% markup and other non-recurring expenses. Overall acquisition cost, going by the rule of thumb, would be approx twice that, so.. $200 mil per unit, give or take.

In my book, that's far better value for money than the F-16 or Gripen (or the Rafale for that matter).

GEELONG, Australia—Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightnings could cost about $80 million each if the stealth fighter is ordered in multi-year lots, the manufacturer says, conditionally backing a call for lower prices from the Pentagon’s program chief.

Meanwhile, F-35s at a Red Flag exercises in January and February notionally killed far more than 20 enemy fighters for each F-35 loss, not the initially reported 15, says Brig. Gen. Scott Pleus, the U.S. Air Force officer responsible for introduction of the model into service.

Lockheed Martin’s comment on potential unit costs of the F-35A follow a statement of the Pentagon’s Joint Strike Fighter program manager, Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, that a long-standing price target of $85 million in 2019 was not low enough. The price in 2019-20 should be $80 million, Bogdan said at the Australian International Airshow at Avalon, Geelong, this week. The most recently negotiated figure, for production lot 10, is $94.6 million.

The $80 million target is reasonable, says Jeff Babione, head of the program for Lockheed Martin, also speaking at the Australian show. But cooperation from customers is needed, he adds: the price can come down if customers contract for several years of production at a time, rather than the usually yearly lots.

Babione suggests that customers should negotiate a contract for three years of production, then one for five years.

These prices include the aircraft’s Pratt & Whitney F135 engine and compare with the $60-65 million unit price of the F-16, a much smaller fighter, of 9.21 metric tons (20,300 lb.) empty weight. The F-35A’s empty weight is around 13.2 metric tons.

^ Multi-year buys i.e. bulk purchases have now been sanctioned. And keep in mind, that that's likely a bog standard (Blk 50/52) F-16 they've referenced and not the Blk 70 being offered to India. The F-16's price will continue to grow as they start rolling up the production back-end.